I would start with the question of why is it that people need visas. We live on the same earth. We should be allowed to travel wherever we want. It's ridiculous.
While you may believe that current surveillance has gone too far, advocating for no security is much too far the other direction. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
Without any visas or border control, you have no way to prevent ingress and egress of known criminals, people carrying infectious diseases, or any of myriad other actually real threats. Just because people exaggerate threats like terrorism does not mean there is nothing to defend against.
It is also important to prevent people who have no means of sustenance from moving into your country and becoming a burden. In no way am I implying that exceptions should not be granted for asylum or other exceptional circumstances. However, being in a country is a bit like being in a club -- everyone pays dues (taxes) and there are perks too. Why should club members want to give everyone the perks while they have all the responsibilities?
Your thought that people should try to be closer to one another is admirable, but I think if you reflect on it further, you'll agree that some forms of restriction are necessary.
As for infectious diseases, they should be controlled locally, not on some arbitrarily defined border.
Diseases and criminal activity is just a small fraction of all immigration issues. Government doesn't care about it as much. I'd be absolutely fine with them if those were the only restrictions.
Cheers to a free mind such as yourself who won't be lured into circular reasoning by the happenstance of being born subject to arbitrary policy, and to a free mind who recognizes that borders are inhumane comparatively, in a natural sense, irrespective of the policies of other groups that claim territory and dictate the travels of others.
Land grab has been a 'bumpy road' over the course of millennia, to say the least, yet mob rule within a framework of a [rule of law] does not make the effects of policy more justified ethically. Historically and presently, the lines are drawn under a simple premise: "might makes right." I believe it's eventually possible to change that mindset. It would take an entire "nation" to effectively lead by example, under the ironic creed of Lady Liberty. That's clearly a daunting prospect any time soon, at least for large nations. However, nurturing more people to have freer, conscientious minds who can extrapolate ethics from [law/might] are the important part of a path to getting there.
There is nothing "free" about a mind that believes and children's fairy tales like universal "ethics."
Also, there's no need to protect me from anarchy, since the exact meaning of the word "anarchy" is "no rulers". I'd rather be protected from _rulers, than from lack of rulers.
Re: anarchy, it's a cute philosophy for sheltered westerners who grew up with the blessings of good government. Ask anyone in rural Pakistan, where government power is almost nil and warlords dominate, what they think of anarchy.
I agree that the majority of the people controlling a territory get to set the rules they wish to set - that's "the way it is". A warlord gets to set the rules within the territory he's controlling. Putin gets to set the rules in Russia. The banking / military-industrial cartel gets to set the rules in the US.
What "should be", however, is an entirely different matter. "The majority of people controlling my house" should consist of exactly one person - me. That's the definition of private property. I should be the one setting the rules in my house - not "the majority of the people", not "the majority of Americans", not "the majority of the residents of Washington". My ownership of my private property should not be consistent upon the will of a group of people in a randomly selected geographical area.
Warlords are not "anarchy", warlords are proto-governments, feudal governments, whatever you call them. Anarchy means "no rulers", no warlords, in particular.
Exactly. Government (a collective domination) is only more humane the more its architecture is built to transparently protect people from tyranny. Tyranny especially includes itself: tyranny of government, of groups, and of individuals. It might be from a mafia. It might be a Congress. It might be a roving gang. It might be the head of a state. It's subjecting you physically and economically either way.
So begins the complexity of how to have a system of governance that can limit people from claiming power over others. The US didn't achieve this, sadly, compared to the corporate oligarchy it continues to entrench itself into. Having a more humane system than what most dictatorships had was a worthy cause, especially in the 18th century. It's a low bar to set and mentally dwell in now though. Imagine a world where there are no people who want to improve or truly change the systems into which they're violently subjected. It's a scary thought. It looks a lot like reality.
When _my_ friends cannot visit me in _my_ house, however, because they are lacking a piece of paper called visa, the world is really messed up.
So don't you dare say that I have my house because of the government.
The key distinction between the two is that nerds like us on Hacker News can't defend territory. Without ganging up together to ensure collective defense, we're at the mercy of the physically strong. Without society, nerds have nothing to trade for security. That's why before the existence of democratic government, the western world was dominated by military men (feudal barons), not businessmen or intellectual men.